Fracture analysis of monolithic CAD‐CAM crowns

• DOI: 10.1111/jerd.12462
• Publication Date: 2019-03-01T04:14:55Z
• Authors: Afnan Kashkari; Burak Yilmaz; William A. Brantley; Scott R. Schricker; William M. Johnston
• Keywords: Dental Stress Analysis; Ceramics; Crowns; Dental Porcelain; Resin Cements; 03 medical and health sciences; 0302 clinical medicine; Materials Testing; Computer-Aided Design; Humans; Dental Restoration Failure; Zirconium

AbstractPurposeThe aim of this study was to compare the integrity of zirconia, lithium disilicate, and zirconia‐reinforced lithium silicate CAD‐CAM crowns after being subjected to cyclic loading and then subjected to static loading until fracture.Material and MethodsZirconia (Zirkonzahn), lithium disilicate (LDS, Ivoclar Vivadent AG), and zirconia‐reinforced lithium silicate glass ceramic (ZLS) (Vita Suprinity, Vita Zahnfabrik) monolithic crowns were milled (n = 6). The crowns were bonded using composite resin cements and subjected to cyclic loading under wet conditions. Three specimens from each group were loaded for 10 000 cycles, and the other three specimens were loaded for 50 000 cycles with 250 N. Specimens were subjected to loading until fracture. Load‐to‐fracture values were analyzed with 2‐way (ANOVA) and Tukey‐Kramer post hoc test (α = 0.05). Specimens from each group were examined using an SEM.ResultsMean load‐to‐fracture values among materials were significantly different from each other (P < 0.05). No significant effect of the number of cycles was found on the load‐to‐fracture values of crowns (P > 0.05).ConclusionLoad‐to‐fracture values of zirconia were higher than those of LDS, which were higher than those of ZLS. The number of fatigue loading cycles did not affect the load‐to‐fracture of the tested crowns for a given material.Clinical SignificanceMore research needs to be conducted before considering the routine use of ZLS for molars in patients with high risk of parafunctional habits.